Program Analysis Vote

[Anonymous]

When is BOE voting on Program Analysis? I thought that was supposed to be December? Has it been pushed back?


Any signs that 6 region craziness will not pass?

[Anonymous]

December was when they made the full presentation. They're supposed to vote in March at the same time as the boundary study (maybe all in one vote or maybe two, I'm not sure.) No signs that it won't pass as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:December was when they made the full presentation. They're supposed to vote in March at the same time as the boundary study (maybe all in one vote or maybe two, I'm not sure.) No signs that it won't pass as far as I can tell.

All votes will be conducted in one day and all Resolutions will be on the Consent Agenda so the BOE and Taylor can leave to make their Easter Vacation video on location.

[Anonymous]

Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

So the Board agreed in principal to six regions and eliminating DCC in Dec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

So the Board agreed in principle to six regions and eliminating DCC in Dec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

So the Board agreed in principal to six regions and eliminating DCC in Dec?

Not explicitly or formally, but the absence of critical questions/comments gives a pretty clear sense of what's likely to be ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

So the Board agreed in principal to six regions and eliminating DCC in Dec?

Not explicitly or formally, but the absence of critical questions/comments gives a pretty clear sense of what's likely to be ahead.

DP. I would add that they actually praised the proposal - so it's not just an absence of critical comments. Brenda Wolff in particular led the charge, but others agreed with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

So the Board agreed in principal to six regions and eliminating DCC in Dec?

Not explicitly or formally, but the absence of critical questions/comments gives a pretty clear sense of what's likely to be ahead.

DP. I would add that they actually praised the proposal - so it's not just an absence of critical comments. Brenda Wolff in particular led the charge, but others agreed with her.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

I have several family and friends that value my opinion about local politics. I will most certainly not be waiting for the boundary/program analysis vote to spread the word that neither Yang nor Silvestre belong on the County Council.

[Anonymous]

Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

BOE will say that the implementation of the regional model is outside of the scope of their responsibility. So MCPS will do whatever it wants.

[Anonymous]

The presentation was in November and even then it wasn’t fully complete. Everyone knows it needs more work. I thought they were supposed to keep coming back between now and the March vote?

Additional data was requested and they hadn’t even finished all the community engagement sessions.

People need to demand to see and hear about the questions from the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The presentation was in November and even then it wasn’t fully complete. Everyone knows it needs more work. I thought they were supposed to keep coming back between now and the March vote?

Additional data was requested and they hadn’t even finished all the community engagement sessions.

People need to demand to see and hear about the questions from the community.

Does need way more work. But BOE will still vote on it, unfinished.

My understanding, Sup makes final reco this month (late Jan) on boundary study, lumping in regional model with it. Then they supposedly get public feedback, but BOE votes in March regardless. That's it.

MCPS is presenting regional model as deliberately unfinished because they don't have to have it finalized. Their BS about "we roll this out one year at a time" is good enough, so we have plenty of time to finalize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?